251–260 of 776 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying racist stuff constantly but playing it off as "ironic" and wearing a suit doesn't make it less racist. Good, they should have kicked these guys off years ago.
Any examples of Milo making a racist remark? Afaik his criticism is mainly towards certain cultures. Not races.
Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are basically monopolies. They are the only services in their class to take seriously if you're looking to gain a following. If they didn't exist, alternative services would spring up. But alternative services know they can't compete with FB/YouTube/Twitter, so none exist. When people say "if you don't like FB's rules, use another service" it ignores that Facebook is the reason there isn't another service and thus has some responsibility to uphold values we've collectively decided as a society are important.
The issue is not whether Facebook is breaking the law but whether philosophically the market leader in a category should get to decide who can use their product when their product category is fundamental to modern life. Saying "no one is owed a platform" brings us no closer to an answer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The argument is about whether Facebook is a platform or a publisher. This discussion has been going on for years and not just on HN. Being a platform, like ATT telephone lines, bring certain protections from lawsuits of content. The core of net neutrality is also based on a similar idea; with net neutrality, platforms (cable companies) can not between distinguish services (like throttling Netflix). In the exact same…
> Hope this helps. Thanks for the clarification, but I don't find it convincing. I disagree with the underlying premise that we should clump social media into (only) two categories (platforms and publishers) where if you exercise any editorial control you are immediately categorized as "publisher" (category that is appropriate for an entity that explicitly and deliberately chooses everything it publishes) and where o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "many anti-war voices" Care to name some names?
Over 800 have been banned including Anti-media and Police the Police. Here is a list of only a few: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/social-media-purge-top-ten...
As for the "over 800" you mention, here's what the source (RT) actually says:
"Facebook is again being called out for purging political accounts too far left and right of center, after it removed more than 800 pages just in time for the 2018 midterm elections. Some had millions of followers.
Many of the affected pages were supposedly sharing links between groups using fake accounts, which then clicked "Like" on the posts, artificially upping their engagement numbers. This "inauthentic behavior" violates Facebook's anti-spam policies and goes against "what people expect" from Facebook, the company said."
That's basically platform abuse, so a ban is warranted as well.
To be clear, I'm not necessarily in favor of banning any of these "alternative media" outlets, but I can imagine why those may have been banned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Black” and “White” as identities are both products of White racism (outside of White racism, individual ethnic identities have historically been prominent, but not a racial identity.) Positive Black racial identity is a reaction against White racism, whereas White racial identity is it's continuation. And it remains the case that the effort to advance a broad crosd-ethnic White racial identity is intimately connecte…
And black identity is detached from black supremacist ideology? In fact, logic is useful in evaluating the world. All of it.
Yes, it is. Both exist (well, at least black identity and black nationalism do, and that's close enough that I'm not going to quibble about it), but while black nationalism depends on black identity black identity exists and thrives outside of it (and historically does so as a reaction against White anti-Black racist actions and ideology), while White racial identity as opposed to ethnic identities largely does not exist outside of White racism (of which it is also a product, though not, obviously, a reaction against.)
> In fact, logic is useful in evaluating the world.
Logic is useful for evaluating the relationship between abstract concepts, but is only useful for evaluating the world when you join it with all the relevant facts about the world. When you reason about abstractions without facts, or in ways which implicitly make counterfactual assumptions, you reach conclusions that are either without material relevance or incorrect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> to create narratives in which blackness is not looked down upon. This is good, needed work. so like: In the Nation of Islam, both God and the devil are human beings. Elijah Muhammad identified the devil as the white man, the Caucasian race. According to Elijah, though the black race is many trillions of years old, the white race began a mere six thousand years ago with Yakub, one of the Black Gods of this time cycl…
As if other religions had a sane non violent healthy mythology. Please.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Milo is an "edgy" comedian. His shtick is to be provocative. I can't imagine he's dangerous in any real way. Offensive, yes, but not dangerous.
Milo disagrees: https://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Milo-Yiannopoulos/dp/069289... lol
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> allowing those views on your platform make you complicit Every faction since the dawn of history has said that the views of the other factions are objectively harmful. What is it that blesses SV neo-something-or-other as the one true faction that has finally discovered the objective truth?
Facebook is a corporation and their website is private property. You have no free speech.
On the other paw, I don’t believe in absolute freedom of speech, because the very power which makes the freedom worth having also enables it to cause harm. I think the quote “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him“ still applies today.
I wish I had a solution to that rather than just a vague feeling. Vague inexpressible feelings are part of the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alex Jones popularized a propagated the myth of "Crisis Actors" and that Sandy Hook was a hoax. Trolls on the internet telling parents that their children aren't really dead, that they should exhume their bodies to prove that they really died, that they are being paid by the shadow government, that their grief looked too fake - all of this is real harm. We can talk about the doxing and the stalking and the harassment…
> Trolls on the internet telling parents that their children aren't really dead, that they should exhume their bodies to prove that they really died, that they are being paid by the shadow government, that their grief looked too fake - all of this is real harm. Did Alex Jones specifically incite his fans or these trolls to do this? If so, then he's legally culpable. If not, then why place the blame on him? The legal…
Yes, and he's currently facing (multiple) lawsuits because of it. His defense appears to be that it was temporary hysteria. We'll see how that plays out.
Sounds fine to me. HN bans and threatens to ban people too and that's a good thing.
At the very least HN should have a public log showing all administrative censorship so people can judge it for themselves.
Without transparency we simply don't know how this extremely influential social network is being manipulated by a tiny handful of people.